Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Sep 21, 2011 5:46pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: breaking (up) news

To hear some people tell it, the Grateful Dead were good for about six weeks, in the spring of 1968 or maybe it was 1969. After that, pfffft, nothin' worth listening to.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Arbuthnot Date: Sep 21, 2011 6:21pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: breaking (up) news

i see you've been reading my posts, quite closely it seems too

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Sep 21, 2011 6:34pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: breaking (up) news

LOL

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: wisconsindead Date: Sep 21, 2011 5:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: breaking (up) news

sarcasm?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Sep 21, 2011 6:00pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: breaking (up) news

A verrrrrry slight exaggeration. Regarding some people's views, that is (not mine).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: wisconsindead Date: Sep 21, 2011 6:02pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: breaking (up) news

word up. The grateful dead made magic their entire career. It just became much less frequent as the years continued, or varied from period to period etc. the 90's being the most obvious decline in playing. Anyone who says theres nothing good post brent, keith or pig is delusional, simple as that.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Cliff Hucker Date: Sep 21, 2011 6:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: breaking (up) news

I guess it's pretty obvious when you got on the bus...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: RBNW....new and improved! Date: Sep 21, 2011 7:02pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: breaking (up) news

yup ....the bus was.... out of service !!!!!!!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Sep 21, 2011 8:41pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: breaking (up) news

Smarty pants; actually, I love this thread (got my CREAM comments in...perfect!): I give them EXACTLY six yrs.

Always have: 65-71. No exaggeration. Hey, I only give CREAM two yrs, so cut me some slack.

;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Sep 21, 2011 8:51pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: breaking (up) news

Hm, ok, I didn't realize you went as far back as '65 (seriously? there's stuff worth listening to from '65? if you say so. I'm highly unlikely to listen to '65, to me that's like, you're missing the point, but I know I can't really say that, you saw them an awful lot more than I ever did). anyway.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Sep 21, 2011 8:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: breaking (up) news

Wait a minute--you really haven't been reading my posts? I've been saying the first six yrs for...well, six yrs, almost...har, har; but seriously.

Oh yeah--the garage band stuff is a lot more fun than one of my 78 "yawn" shows (Grendel?)...Early Morning Rain? Phil? YOu gotta love it!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Sep 21, 2011 8:57pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: breaking (up) news

No, I read your posts, I guess I just can't believe you're serious about '66. Seriously, that is of historical interest, but it's hard for me to believe anyone seriously argues they were BETTER then than in, say, '76. I think you stretch your point a bit :) I will listen to '66 but it's out of interest in their history, the same way I will listen to something from the '90's - occasionally, for interest and because there are worthwhile bits here and there. If I had to explain the Grateful Dead to someone who had just arrived from another planet, I wouldn't suggest they start listening to '66 or '95.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Sep 21, 2011 10:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: breaking (up) news

Right; I'd go right to one of the studio albums, either from 70.

But, March of 67 would number three, with Golden Road, and that links to 65 and 66 quite closely.

So, like you, I see the historical roots of 65 as critical, and say, thus "65-71 are the best yrs, IMHO" just as I would say CREAM was great, but would pick 67 over 66 or 68 to introduce someone to them (well analogy breaks down cause they were still great in 68, but that would be like the DEAD if they stopped in 71...well, okay, 72 or 73 would be acceptable).

Assume that makes sense...